"Barack of Afpakia"

"Barack of Afpakia"

Today's Wall Street Journal suggests that
if President Obama pursues his plans for stepping up the war in
Afghanistan, he'll have to fall back on the support of "Bush
Republicans and neocons." In its lead editorial, it says:

Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist
Richard Reeves, "Why are we in Afghanistan?" The President's friends at
Newsweek are helpfully referring to "Obama's Vietnam." Mr. Obama may
find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support --
to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.

The Journal takes note of the growing opposition on the left to an escalation:

The regents are on the ground and commanders are
crafting new battle plans: President Obama is girding for a war surge
in Afghanistan. Let's hope he's willing to see it through when his most
stalwart supporters start to doubt the effort and rue the cost.

In fact, a 60-day review is underway in the White House, and decisions
haven't yet been set in stone about Obama's Afghan policy. How many
troops he adds, if any -- whether the 10,000 or so that Obama proposed
during the campaign or the 30,000 that the generals want -- isn't
decided. There are calls for congressional hearings and
oversight of Afghan policy. And bloggers, including yours truly, are
raising questions and trying to create greater attention to the problem
at Get Afghanistan Right.

Strangely, yesterday the White House announced that Obama will decide very soon about adding troops to the mix in Afghanistan. Said Robert Gibbs,
Obama's spokesman: "I would expect the presidential decision could come
shortly." Defense Secretary Gates, the Bush holdover, says that Obama
will make a decision within "days." But why would the president decide
to add forces before the completion of the strategy review. As I wrote
earlier, it's a classic case of "Ready, Fire, Aim."

There are already widespread media reports about ther arrival of 3,000 US forces in the area around Kabul. The Chicago Tribune headlines its report: "New US troops in Afghanistan see combat." MSNBC's headline is:
"3,000 troops near Kabul mark start of surge." Strictly speaking, these
troops aren't the result of a decision by Obama, only the continuation
of a beefing-up that was planned in late 2008. As MSNBC's report notes:

The new troops are the first wave of an expected surge
of reinforcements this year. The process began to take shape under
President George Bush but has been given impetus by President Barack
Obama's call for an increased focus on Afghanistan.

Further

With the toxic Bibi circus in town - cue talk of "tentacles of terror" - find hope in the extraordinary Combatants For Peace, a joint effort by Israeli and Palestinian veterans of violence who've laid down their guns to fight for peace. Led by a former IDF soldier and Fatah militant who both lost daughters to the conflict's "unrightable wrongs," they insist on the need to "hear what is painful" and "talk to your 'enemies'... For the sake of our children, we go on. Partners for peace always...